State v. Waldrop

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Glen Edward Waldrop, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000989

Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-235
Submitted June 1, 2021 – Filed June 23, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Glen E. Waldrop appeals his convictions for two counts of
trafficking methamphetamine and concurrent sentences of twenty-five years'
imprisonment on each count. On appeal, Waldrop argues the trial court erred by
failing to quash the indictments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper
venue. We affirm.

We find the trial court did not err by failing to quash the indictments. See State v.
Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94, 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial
court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be
disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of
discretion."). First, an indictment is a notice document; it does not confer subject
matter jurisdiction on the court. See id. at 95, 654 S.E.2d at 852 ("[T]he subject
matter jurisdiction of the circuit court and the sufficiency of an indictment are two
distinct concepts."); id. at 96, 654 S.E.2d at 852 ("Pursuant to [State v. ]Gentry,
[363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005),] an indictment reputed to be insufficient no
longer raises a question of subject matter jurisdiction; rather, it raises a question of
whether a defendant properly received notice he would be tried for a particular
crime."). Nevertheless, the trial court had the power to hear and determine a drug
trafficking case. See id. at 95, 654 S.E.2d at 852 ("Subject matter jurisdiction is
the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong." (quoting Gentry, 363 S.C. at 100, 610 S.E.2d at
498)); S.C. Const. art. V, § 11 (providing the circuit court "shall be a general trial
court with original jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, except those cases in
which exclusive jurisdiction shall be given to inferior courts, and shall have such
appellate jurisdiction as provided by law"); State v. Crocker, 366 S.C. 394, 402,
621 S.E.2d 890, 894 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Circuit courts obviously have subject
matter jurisdiction to try criminal matters." (quoting Gentry, 363 S.C. at 101, 610
S.E.2d at 499)).

To the extent Waldrop is arguing his indictments should be quashed because the
venue was improper, we disagree. Quashing the indictment on the basis of venue
is the proper remedy only if venue is not alleged within the indictment. See State
v. McIntire, 221 S.C. 504, 71 S.E.2d 410 (1952) (providing a motion to quash is
properly denied when the indictment sufficiently alleges venue). Here, both
indictments allege Waldrop possessed methamphetamine in Cherokee County;
thus, the indictments alleged a venue. Further, to the extent Waldrop raises the
issue of improper venue generally, and not within the context of quashing the
indictments, we find there is evidence the crimes charged occurred in Cherokee
County and thus, it was proper for Waldrop to be tried in Cherokee County. See
Crocker, 366 S.C. at 404, 621 S.E.2d at 895 ("The standard for establishing venue
is not a stringent one, for 'venue, like jurisdiction, in a criminal case need not be
affirmatively proved, and circumstantial evidence of venue, though slight, is
sufficient . . . .'" (quoting State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 327, 334, 468 S.E.2d 626, 630
(1996))). Although the vehicle stop occurred in Spartanburg County, Waldrop got
into the vehicle in Cherokee County and the vehicle did not stop prior to the police
stop; thus, Waldrop had the methamphetamine on his person while he was in
Cherokee County. See id. ("[W]here some acts material to the offense . . . occur in
one county, and some in another, venue is proper in either county." (quoting
Williams, 321 S.C. at 334, 468 S.E.2d at 630)); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-375(C)
(2018) ("A person . . . who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession . . . of
ten grams or more of methamphetamine . . . is guilty of a felony which is known as
'trafficking in methamphetamine or cocaine base' . . . .").1

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

1
To the extent Waldrop argues the Cherokee County officers exceeded the bounds
of their jurisdiction, we find this issue is not preserved for appellate review
because Waldrop did not object to the admission of the evidence during trial. See
State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 42, 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("A ruling in limine is
not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Unless an objection is made at
the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved
for review." (citation omitted)); Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 55, 710
S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011) ("When a party states to the trial court that it has no
objection to the introduction of evidence, even though the party previously made a
motion to exclude the evidence, the issue raised in the previous motion is not
preserved for appellate review.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.